Posted on 12/29/2007 11:15:05 AM PST by doug from upland
I value greatly your insight and opinion. Please share some of the things you personally believe about what happened in Mena.
bump for later
bttt
/jasper
So at this juncture, which scion was more diabolical - Joe Kennedy or Prescott Bush?
One has to remember, our CIA was (is?) penetrated more ways and more times than a Fontana lot lizard.
They needed money for deals, Swiss Bank Accounts and the like, for people in gatekeeper positions. Look how many assets (turned Soviet officers - real live breathing humans) were killed before the CIA realized Aldrich Ames was poison? They had to go into black ops if they wanted something secret.
And closer to your area Doug, remember that crooked Sheriff there who stole 1200 plus guns from the evidence locker? He has returned less than 120?
I and few others believe he pinched a load from a certain three letter agency and had to pay them back. Can I prove it? - Nope. But of the missing guns, Not One has ever made it to a NCIC "hit". Remember, in Cali, no private party sales; everything has to go thru a dealer and a phone call to Federal Records. Not one of these guns has ever been taken for safe keeping - always done in family disturbances, pawned or traded thru a legit dealer. Not one.
So we have 900 plus guns which just dropped off the face of the Earth?
Plus that Sheriff wasn't prosecuted for the machine gun he was found with?
And I could go on and on about Sergeants in Narcotics Division buying million dollar homes back in the eighties....
Also if you read another book, Dark Alliance,, by Gary Webb, you'll see that particular county was also the base for Danilio Blandon, a major player in supplying Freeway Ricky Ross. I also met some of the players mentioned in Webb's book.
They weren't dirt bags by any stretch of the imagination.
The eighties, man what an era ;^)
Think. Think. And think some more.
I can perfectly understand how Clinton was able to defeat Bush 41. Why would anyone need to “give” someone the presidency when that wannabe President was perfectly capable of getting it. Bush 41 vs. Bill Clinton? We had to do a lot of double takes back in that day, at first, due to our disbelief that America would fall for Bill.
But looking back, we were incredibly naive to think Bush 41 ever had a chance in that race. In my view there is no way he could have won it. It was barely plausible that Clinton could have lost it due to something awful sweeping the airwaves and nauseating the public, when he was being newly intro’d to America. But that was prevented from happening by the media and by the Clinton Machine.
I also easily find non-conspiratorial explanations for each thing you wonder about, doug.
Bookmark for later reading.
I didn’t say Clinton was handed the presidency. I wonder why they seem to be so cozy. It is more than being in the former presidents’ club. Carter will never be cozy with W. The Clintons have never been prosecuted because of mutual blackmail. It is all such a dirty, corrupt business in DC. I have wondered if the mututal blackmail really does go back to Mena.
We will never be allowed to have all the information to make such a determination.
Of course, there is plenty of corruption by individuals in both agencies that the leadership are unaware of. But there is no credible evidence of any CIA program - official or unofficial - to import cocaine into the U.S. for distribution in order to raise money.
Clinton-Bush conspiracy bump for later.......
The Mena Airport story is familiar enough to anyone who followed that business. There were three major players: Governor Clinton, Vice President Bush (then under Reagan), and Manuel Noriega.
The motivation for the CIA to be involved in it was when the idiot Democrats in congress cut off all funding to the Contras in Nicaragua. Reagan thought, plausibly enough, that if the Communist takeover was not reversed, it would spread throughout Latin America. So he needed to find some source of funding.
One source appears to have been Iran-Contra. That was seedy enough, but I think they were desperate to head off a mortal danger to our security. Another source was the Mena drug smuggling operation.
The CIA has, I believe, recurrently been in the drug smuggling business, sometimes to raise money, sometimes to make connections in places like the Golden Triangle that were useful in the war against Communism. Was this justified? Probably not. But at least the basic motive of national security gave it some excuse.
I have always thought that Bush senior was involved as a patriot. And he was probably involved because of his background as CIA head and insider and because Ronald Reagan asked him to do it. Reagan probably felt that it was either that or see the whole world go under to a wave of Communist takeovers. And the Democrats did everything they could to block him from doing anything.
Clinton was involved because he was the governor of the state where the smuggling took place. And his motives were clear enough too: a long record of drug smuggling in the past, and greed in the present.
During the course of this business, $100 million of profits disappeared. It’s anyone’s guess which of the three bosses stole it, but my money is on clinton. It fits him to a T. In other words, Bush was involved out of patriotism—maybe misguided patriotism, if you disapprove—and clinton was involved out of pure greed.
But you are quite right that it subjects him to the threat of blackmail. Or at least I think you are right. Could clinton squeal on Bush without implicating himself? How could he make this story public without suffering the consequences? I suppose that it means that each of them agrees to leave the other alone. Which is sick, but the Bushes had more admirable motives than the clintons: patriotism vs. Greed.
And you forgot they found a reference to 900 pounds of 'paste' in Ollie North's notes? What he's a going open a pizza shop?
Any clue why Washington insider, Sandy Berger got a free ride on beau coup felonies that would have sent any of us to prison?
Ross Perot ran for Prez in 1992. He got 19% of the vote — Clinton only had 43% of the popular vote, and Daddy Bush staggered in at 37%. Why would Perot do this except to throw the election to Clinton? What was in it for him? Why did Larry King give Perot such a continuous forum if not to make sure that everyone knew not to vote for BushI?
I am looking for the same thing to happen in 2008. It’ll be a whole lot of fringe party candidates and the MSM will convince everyone that all the Repubs stink. Commissar Hillary could actually win it with 34-35% of the popular vote if enough is pulled away by the fringers. The voter fraud in the next election is bound to reach epic proportions.
Our best hope is to convince everyone that Hillary is unelectable and the Dems do go for Obama - the true lightweight out if far Left Field.
It truly pains me to observe what you have become . . . NO MORE FR CONSPIRACY NUTS.
Perot wanted Bush 41 to lose because he wasn’t asked to be a member of his cabinet. Perot is a slimy snake and at the post Election Ball Perot was the happiest loser you ever saw. He was twirling his wife around the dance floor laughing his head off. He had accomplished what he set out to accomplish....... HE DEFEATED BUSH 41!
FYI
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2007/12/clinton-stench-drugs-returning-to-white.html
Also check the two Bhutto videos below the above post
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.